Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Yoda]

Wow, Brackite! Thank you for all of the scriptural references! I think that is why, as a believing LDS, this issue has been so confusing to me.

The "get out of jail free card" that is always trumped is Jacob 2:30:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

What are your thoughts regarding this scripture?

Bob, you made a point out of the "thus saith the Lord" phrase. Did you notice that it is also used in Jacob 2?

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz,

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I know you are asking Brackite (who has done AMAZING work on this), but here is how I read it.

If I, Jesus Christ want to bring people unto me I will command them, (give them direction and help). Otherwise (if I do not) these men will have many wives and concubines and break the hearts of his daughters.

Or put another way, if Christ doesn't help, men will break the hearts of his daughters by taking many wives and concubines which thing is an ABOMINATION.

I really think the apologetic interpretation is a big stretch (excuse). ;-)

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

Thanks for your input, TD.

My interpretation based on the content surrounding the scripture is similar.

The Lord specifically references this quote:"Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old."

This indicates to me that this is NOT a righteous way to "raise up seed unto Him". That we will receive further instruction on a righteous way to raise up seed unto Him, and that having multiple wives and concubines is NOT that way.

Charity, what is your take?

[_harmony]

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

And indeed, the land was cursed. The Saints were driven out of Nauvoo, cursed by their neighbors, God's blessings withheld from them. Wherever they went, when the ugly head of the Abomination raised its head, things were very difficult for them. The stubbornness of their leaders was the cause of many unnecessary trials and tribulations, unnecessary death, unnecessary deprivation, all because the leaders were proud and stubborn, and refused to do what was necessary to lift the curse. Which of course was humble themselves before God and admit their mistake.

Pres Woodruff had no choice; the government required that he do what was necessary to lift the curse from the Saints. If we could only get the present leadership to swallow their pride long enough to do the right thing and accept that the reason for the curse was Joseph's disobedience.

[_Yoda]

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

And indeed, the land was cursed. The Saints were driven out of Nauvoo, cursed by their neighbors, God's blessings withheld from them. Wherever they went, when the ugly head of the Abomination raised its head, things were very difficult for them. The stubbornness of their leaders was the cause of many unnecessary trials and tribulations, unnecessary death, unnecessary deprivation, all because the leaders were proud and stubborn, and refused to do what was necessary to lift the curse. Which of course was humble themselves before God and admit their mistake.

Pres Woodruff had no choice; the government required that he do what was necessary to lift the curse from the Saints. If we could only get the present leadership to swallow their pride long enough to do the right thing and accept that the reason for the curse was Joseph's disobedience.

This is an interesting take, Harmony. I really hadn't thought of this before. It's interesting because in Sunday School, etc., it is always taught that the Saints should be revered for "taking a stand with God" regarding polygamy.

But let's think outside the box for a moment. Although the Saints, themselves, were good people, and victims of their leaders' direction, could God have been punishing them for the abomination of taking multiple wives and concubines? Is that why they were driven out, and yet, the Church, as it is functioning now, with changes that have been made to the temple ceremony, etc. remains?

[_truth dancer]

Harmony... you make a lot of sense! :-)

Another thing Liz, Christ (if one believes in the Book of Mormon... smile), clearly states having multiple wives is an "abomination" and breaks the hearts of His daughters.

So unless God is a REALLY cruel father, why would He need to break the hearts of His daughters with such an abomination in order to "raise up seed."

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The interpretation that God allows polygamy to raise up seed seems to somehow assume some magical idea that women will all of a sudden not have their hearts broken if their husbands sleep with other women and they no longer have a beautiful exclusive partnership with their husbands as Christ taught. Of course this is nonsense.

While I always allow for some adults to enjoy alternative relationships, it seems clear to me that during the early days of the church the hearts of many, many women were broken.

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

While I always allow for some adults to enjoy alternative relationships, it seems clear to me that during the early days of the church the hearts of many, many women were broken.

While there are accounts of women who have born testimony of the plural marriage covenant, on the whole, I would agree with you.

[_charity]

Thanks for your input, TD.

My interpretation based on the content surrounding the scripture is similar.

The Lord specifically references this quote:"Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old."

This indicates to me that this is NOT a righteous way to "raise up seed unto Him". That we will receive further instruction on a righteous way to raise up seed unto Him, and that having multiple wives and concubines is NOT that way.

Charity, what is your take?

My take is that when people sin and fail to keep the commandments of God is when they get into trouble. For instance, David and Solomon lived plural marriage and God says that they were not condemned for that, but for where they disobeyed his commandmants. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was not his wife. Solomon took wives from among the fobidden groups.

Abraham and Jacob were never condemned for having plural wives. Neither was Moses.

Harmony and others say that Jesus specifically condemned plural marriage and yet there is not statement anywhere in the New Testament where He said any such thing. And although it is not official doctrine I believe that Jesus lived in a plural marriage. People who know the cultural practices of the day say that His relationship with Mary and Martha could not be explained except as that of husband and wives.

What it all boils down to is that any of God's commandments will bring blessings to those who live them. But if God has not commanded them, and yet people try to live that way anyway, they are not blessed, and God condemns them for it. This is the case with plural marriage.

I have examined the claims, and do not think there is any case to be made at all, that Section 132 was "made up" by Joseph Smith. It is a case in the minds of critics, that since plural marriage could not be approved by God, then there has to be another reason for the revelation. It is a Vogelian argument. Refuse to accept the real reason, and then grasp at straws to try to bolster your faulty reasoning.

[_truth dancer]

Harmony and others say that Jesus specifically condemned plural marriage and yet there is not statement anywhere in the New Testament where He said any such thing. And although it is not official doctrine I believe that Jesus lived in a plural marriage. People who know the cultural practices of the day say that His relationship with Mary and Martha could not be explained except as that of husband and wives.

Ummm... Charity, there may be a handful of LDS folks who believe this but my observation is the VAST majority of Christian leaders, experts, historians, completely disagree with you. Jesus clearly taught that a marriage was between one man and one woman, they were to cleave unto each other and none other. In spite of your beliefs I do not think this is argued by anyone but a handful of LDS true believers.

What it all boils down to is that any of God's commandments will bring blessings to those who live them. But if God has not commanded them, and yet people try to live that way anyway, they are not blessed, and God condemns them for it. This is the case with plural marriage.

This is exactly what Harmony is saying. If God didn't command men taking wives and concubines and Joseph Smith & Co did, then they were not blessed.

I have examined the claims, and do not think there is any case to be made at all, that Section 132 was "made up" by Joseph Smith. It is a case in the minds of critics, that since plural marriage could not be approved by God, then there has to be another reason for the revelation. It is a Vogelian argument. Refuse to accept the real reason, and then grasp at straws to try to bolster your faulty reasoning.

In my opinion, there is a wonderful, clear teaching/commandment given by Jesus Christ himself, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Based on this commandment, I find it impossible to rationalize the behavior of these men who took many wives and concubines during the early days of the church. Unless these guys would be happy to have their wives sleep with the high council while they were unable to have a real relationship with a woman, or to have their hearts completely broken as their wives were unavailable to them but having affairs with their buddies, these men clearly did not act in accordance to this commandment.

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Liz,

While there are accounts of women who have born testimony of the plural marriage covenant, on the whole, I would agree with you.

Some time ago I had the opportunity to visit extensively with two women from an FLDS community. Both women had strong testimonies of their beliefs. They would express this and believed God was at the helm of polygamy. Behind closed doors they were more heart broken than I can possibly describe. They felt empty, alone, sorrowful. They described the never ending heart wrenching experience they had to endure. They felt they were being tested as was Abraham. They felt they would somehow find peace in the next life. And they would bear a strong testimony that they are following the will of God.

Since this time, while yes there are those who enjoy all sorts of unusual or alternative types of living arrangement, I sense that testimony or not, the sorrow and broken hearts are behind the testimonies.

Some women managed polygamy better than others, some women may have enjoyed the idea of their husbands sleeping with other women, some may have not wanted a close relationship with a man at all, but I think the reality is, as Christ taught in the Book of Mormon, men taking multiple wives and concubines is an abomination and breaks the hearts of women.

~dancer~